Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made it clear on Thursday what would happen if President Donald Trump fires his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. “If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay,” he told CNN. Graham also said he is looking to introduce legislation next week that would block the firing of special counsels without a judicial review.

Rumors have been swirling around Capitol Hill this week that Trump is looking to dispose of Sessions and Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russia’s election interference, and any potential links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

“This effort to basically marginalize and humiliate the attorney general is not going over well in the Senate,” Graham told CNN. “If you believe Jeff Sessions should be fired, use the power you have and accept the consequences.”

On Monday, Trump fired off a tweet calling Sessions “beleaguered,” asking why he has not looked into “Crooked Hillarys [sic] crimes & Russia relations.” Trump is reportedly upset that Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, which left an opening filled by Mueller, a widely respected prosecutor who Trump is also unhappy with.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Sessions was one of Trump’s earliest advocates, and the first senator to embrace his candidacy. The attorney general has also faithfully pursued Trump’s campaign vision–perhaps more than any other cabinet appointee–adopting a hard-line immigration stance and a law and order philosophy on crime.

Republican senators rushed to Sessions’ defense following Trump’s Twitter barrage. They were joined by some Democrats, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who warned that firing Sessions could provoke a “constitutional crisis.” Others said it would further prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the investigations involving Russia and his campaign.

Sessions had been largely mum on the topic of his potential firing until Thursday afternoon. In an interview with Fox, he called Trump’s attacks “hurtful,” but said that Trump “is determined to move this country in the direction he believes it needs to go to make us great again.” He added that Trump “wants all of us to do our jobs and that’s what I intend to do.”

Graham’s legislation would essentially make it more difficult for Trump, and future presidents, to fire a special counsel, which includes Mueller. Dismissing a special counsel would require a judicial review to determine if reasons behind the firing “meet the statutory definitions,” Graham said.

The effort is likely to be a bi-partisan endeavor. Graham’s Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have said they are working on the bill. Blumenthal said it “might be a committee effort,” adding that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lindsey Graham: If Trump Fires Sessions, “There Will be Holy Hell to Pay” appeared first on Law Street.

Federal officials visited Denver and Colorado Springs this week, holding a number of private meetings with local representatives about Colorado’s legal marijuana system and its sizable black market. The federal fact-finding mission comes as pro-marijuana advocates across the country worry about a fresh crack-down on marijuana users and sellers by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The first meeting took place in Denver on Tuesday. According to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper’s marijuana adviser Mark Bolton, representatives from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Domestic Policy Control, and the State Department attended the closed-door session.

“Our purpose was to convey to them the strength of our regulatory system and our enforcement system and our policies and practices,” Bolton, who was also present at the meeting, told The Cannabist. He added that the federal officials saw the meeting “as an educational opportunity.”

Colorado’s attorney general, Cynthia Coffman, also met with the federal officials. Coffman and Hickenlooper, in a joint statement, said the meeting “focused on sharing Colorado’s experience creating and executing a robust and effective regulatory and enforcement system, and our continuing efforts to protect public health and public safety.”

In April, Hickenlooper joined three other governors from states that have legalized marijuana in asking Sessions and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to consult them “before embarking on any changes to regulatory and enforcement systems.”

Thus far, Sessions has expressed a personal animus for marijuana, but has not taken any drastic measures to enforce federal law over state law. Marijuana is banned at the federal level, while eight states and D.C. have fully legalized cannabis.

In the second meeting, on Wednesday in Colorado Springs, federal officials, including representatives from the DEA, met with the city’s mayor, John Suthers. Local officials were criticized for holding the meeting in private, which they did because the meetings “include sensitive investigative information,” according to a statement from Suthers.

“The folks that came out didn’t want it public; there’s no reason for it to be public,” Suthers told KKTV 11, a local news station that reported the meetings. Suthers added he believes the officials visited Colorado, which legalized marijuana in 2012 “to find out what law enforcement and other regulatory agencies’ view is toward marijuana regulation in Colorado.”

Both meetings come the week before the Justice Department is set to release a report on violent crime, immigration, and drug trafficking. It is unclear if the meetings, which also featured discussions about Colorado’s black marijuana market, are related to that report.

Meanwhile, a Denver-based research company reported this week that Colorado has collected over $500 million from marijuana taxes since legal sales began in January 2014.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Officials Visit Colorado to Learn About Legal Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

It is accepted wisdom at this point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is no fan of marijuana, including in its medicinal capacity. He is adamant that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” He recently compared medical marijuana, which has never led to an overdose death, to opioids, which kill nearly a hundred Americans each day.

Now, Sessions is pushing congressional leaders to allow the Justice Department to use its funds to prosecute medical marijuana-related crimes, even in states that have legalized medical marijuana. In a letter sent last month to top-ranking representatives and senators, obtained by MassRoots on Monday, Sessions shows his opposition to a budget provision that would prohibit the Justice Department from spending federal cash to crack down on states with legal medical marijuana laws. He wrote:

I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime. The Department must be in a position to use all laws available to combat the transnational drug organizations and dangerous drug traffickers who threaten American lives.

Sessions is referring to the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, a budget rider, introduced in 2014, that prevents the Justice Department from allocating funds to press cases against medical marijuana actors in states that have legalized cannabis for medicinal purposes. The amendment was included in the Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus spending bill, which passed early last month, states:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used […] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Though the spending bill, which will fund the government until October 1, included the amendment, it is unclear whether it will make the next one. In the letter, which was provided to MassRoots by a congressional staffer, Sessions argues that the amendment prevents the DOJ from cracking down on gangs that operate in states where medical marijuana is lawful.

“Drug traffickers already cultivate and distribute marijuana inside the United States under the guise of state medical marijuana laws,” he wrote. “In particular, Cuban, Asian, Caucasian, and Eurasian criminal organizations have established marijuana operations in state-approved marijuana markets.”

The Obama Administration was no fan of the amendment either. For one, the Justice Department lobbied Congress to strike down the provision in 2014, arguing that it might “limit or possibly eliminate the Department’s ability to enforce federal law in recreational marijuana cases as well.” And even after the amendment passed, the administration still managed to prosecute individuals and organizations in states where medical marijuana had been legalized.

Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA) responded by writing a letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, saying the administration’s interpretation of the amendment “clearly is a stretch.” They added:

The implementation of state law is carried out by individuals and businesses as the state authorizes them to do. For DOJ to argue otherwise is a tortuous twisting of the text of [the provision] and common sense and the use of federal funds to prevent these individuals and businesses from acting in accordance with state law is clearly in violation of Rohrabacher-Farr.

If the Sessions-led Justice Department takes a similar tactic as the previous administration, it will certainly be hearing from Rohrabacher and Farr.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sessions Asked Congress to Remove Marijuana Protections from Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

A years-long, largely bi-partisan effort to reform the criminal justice system in the U.S., the world’s preeminent jailer, is being undermined by Jeff Sessions. On Friday, the attorney general issued a memo directing federal prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense,” with the “goal of achieving just and consistent results in federal cases.”

Sessions’ memo, issued after weeks of harsh-on-crime rhetoric, effectively reverses a 2013 memo issued by then-attorney general Eric Holder, which directed prosecutors to take a case-by-case approach, and to seek the toughest sentences only for violent offenders. The memo returns the Justice Department to a sentencing approach similar to the one taken by the George W. Bush Administration.

“This is a key part of President Trump’s promise to keep America safe,” Sessions said on Friday, after releasing the short memo to the public. “We know that drugs and crime go hand in hand,” he said. “Drug trafficking is an inherently violent business.” Sessions, who spent the height of the 1980s crack epidemic as a prosecutor, added U.S. attorneys “deserve to be un-handcuffed and not micromanaged from Washington.”

According to the Coalition for Public Safety, an organization that partners with both progressive and conservative groups to push criminal justice reform, there are upwards of two million people incarcerated in the U.S., a 500 percent increase over the past 30 years. One quarter of the world’s entire prisoner population is in the U.S. In a statement in response to Sessions’ memo, the group’s president Steve Hawkins, along with U.S. Justice Action Network’s Holly Harris, said:

Research has shown, time and again, that lengthy prison terms for lower-level offenders do not increase public safety. Federal prosecutors have a responsibility to enforce the law firmly, but need the flexibility to do so in ways that will best serve their communities and protect public safety. That’s why we have and continue to support congressional efforts to reform sentencing.

“Locking up people who don’t pose a threat to public safety is a waste of taxpayer money and law enforcement resources, and it doesn’t deter crime,” they added. Congress failed to pass a bipartisan reform bill last year, despite widespread support, and now, with the Justice Department’s shift in tone and official policy, a federal effort is less likely. States, even Republican bastions with high prison populations, are now leading the charge to reform how non-violent drug offenders are punished and treated.

While there are some Republicans who oppose a more lenient approach to incarceration, many prominent Republican senators–and activists like the Koch brothers–back reform. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a prominent conservative advocate for criminal justice reform, wrote on Twitter on Friday: “To be tough on crime we have to be smart on crime. That is why criminal justice reform is a conservative issue”

Sessions’ memo does allow for “circumstances in which good judgement would lead a prosecutor to conclude that a strict application” of the new policy is “not warranted.” Holder, who was the attorney general from 2009 to 2015, responded to Sessions’ directive in a statement. “This absurd reversal is driven by voices who have not only been discredited but until now have been relegated to the fringes of this debate,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sessions Undermines Bipartisan Push for Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, John Kelly, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said that marijuana “is not a factor in the drug war,” contradicting the hard-line stance of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. While Kelly does not have the same authority as Sessions in enforcing the country’s drug laws, his department does deal directly with cross-border issues like marijuana trafficking.

Kelly does not seem to see marijuana as the same community-wrecking terror that Sessions does. In March, Sessions compared marijuana to heroin, which is ravaging communities across America. Referencing the proposal that medical marijuana could be used to treat opioid addictions, Sessions said he was “astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana–so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that’s only slightly less awful.”

Marijuana and heroin are both classified by the Drug Enforcement Administration as Schedule I substances. But while there were more than 50,000 heroin overdoses in the U.S. in 2016, “no death from overdose of marijuana has been reported,” according to the DEA. Kelly’s assessment of the dangers of marijuana run more in line with the DEA’s findings than Sessions’ does.

Kelly expanded on his comments, saying if the U.S. seeks to staunch the flow of drugs into the country, it should focus on three things: “It’s three things. Methamphetamine. Almost all produced in Mexico. Heroin. Virtually all produced in Mexico. And cocaine that comes up from further south.” And although Kelly, unlike Sessions, does not have the authority to determine how the country’s drug laws are enforced, and how punishment is doled out, he weighed in:

“The solution is not arresting a lot of users,” he said. “The solution is a comprehensive drug demand reduction program in the United States that involves every man and woman of goodwill. And then rehabilitation. And then law enforcement. And then getting at the poppy fields and the coca fields in the south.”

Sessions has a tougher stance on drug users; he once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” Though he said the Cole Memo, an Obama-era directive that prioritizes state drug laws over federal laws, is “valid,” the Trump Administration has signaled that a crack-down could be forthcoming. Twenty-eight states have legalized medical marijuana, while eight states and D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly: Marijuana “Not a Factor” in Drug War appeared first on Law Street.

Marijuana advocates have been worried for months about the recently confirmed Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana,” and he has joked that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” But last week, Sessions spoke with Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, and may have finally hinted at how he might enforce the federal marijuana ban as attorney general.

“Regarding the prioritization of federal resources to combat marijuana, he didn’t see the federal government getting involved in marijuana use or low-level state, what are traditionally state and local crimes, but, I don’t think he ruled out the possibility of the federal government getting involved in larger-scale operations,” Jones said.

If what Jones said is to be taken as Sessions’ stance on enforcing marijuana laws at the state-level, then not much would change. President Barack Obama routinely cracked down on medical marijuana dispensaries and growers, even ones in states that legalized the drug. During Obama’s first three years in office, the Justice Department conducted over 100 raids.

Despite a history of anti-marijuana comments, Sessions has stayed consistent when asked about how he will enforce the federal marijuana ban as attorney general. In his hearing last month, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Sessions how he would handle marijuana enforcement. “I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law,” he responded, “but absolutely it’s a problem of resources for the federal government.”

As more and more states legalize pot in some form–28 states and D.C. have already done so–enforcing the federal ban will become increasingly difficult. Nearly one quarter of Americans now live in a state with some form of legal marijuana, either medical or recreational. And according to a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans favor marijuana legalization, the highest rate in 47 years.

The attorney general is meant to enforce the law based on the law, not his or her own opinions. And in his hearing, Sessions swore under oath to ditch his personal viewpoints when enforcing U.S. law. “It’s not so much the attorney general’s job to decide what laws to enforce. We should do our jobs and enforce laws effectively as we’re able,” Sessions said during his hearing. “The U.S. Congress made the possession of marijuana in every state — and the distribution — an illegal act. If that’s something that’s not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jeff Sessions Signals Marijuana Enforcement Will Remain the Same appeared first on Law Street.

When Jeff Sessions was confirmed as the attorney general late Wednesday night, his Alabama Senate seat needed to be filled. Meet Luther Strange, the man who was tapped for the job. Nicknamed “Big Luther” (he is 6’9″) Strange is the attorney general of Alabama, and a former lawyer and lobbyist. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced the appointment of Strange in a statement on Thursday.

“Alabama has surely been well represented by Senator Sessions, and I am confident Senator Strange will serve as a fine representative for our people,” Bentley said. “His leadership on a national level, service as a statewide elected official and long record of taking on tough federal issues are the very qualities that will make him a strong conservative Senator for Alabama.”

In December, a few weeks after President Donald Trump nominated Sessions as the attorney general, Strange said he would run for the vacant Senate slot in 2018. Strange, 63, will now hold Sessions’ seat until 2018, when a special election will be held; an election for a full six-year term will follow in 2020.

Congratulations to Alabama’s new Senator, Luther Strange. I’m confident you’ll serve the great people of Alabama with honor and distinction. pic.twitter.com/QTbIwGhwry

— Vice President Pence (@VP) February 9, 2017

For his part, Strange said he is “greatly honored and humbled” to succeed Sessions, who by a 52-47 vote was confirmed on Wednesday. “I pledge to the people of Alabama to continue the same level of leadership as Jeff Sessions in consistently fighting to protect and advance the conservative values we all care about,” Strange added.

Strange and Bentley, the governor who appointed him, share some unusual history together. Last spring, 23 members of Alabama’s House Judiciary Committee pursued impeachment proceedings against Bentley. They accused him of having an affair with a political aide, Rebekah Mason. In November, Strange wrote a letter to the committee requesting that they suspend their investigation “until I am able to report to you that the necessary related work of my office has been completed.”

It is unclear if Strange investigated the claims against Bentley–on Thursday he said his November letter “speaks for itself.” But it seems the impeachment proceedings have, at least for the time being, been put on pause. Bentley also has the power to choose Alabama’s next attorney general.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the New Senator from Alabama: Luther Strange appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump fired Sally Yates, the acting attorney general, late Monday night, after she said she would not defend an executive order the president signed last Friday. Dana Boente, a U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, will serve as the acting attorney general for the time being. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a confirmation vote on Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for attorney general, as early as Tuesday.

The controversy that culminated in the firing of Yates began last Friday, when Trump signed an executive order, barring citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from coming to the U.S. for at least 90 days. Syrians are blocked indefinitely, and refugees from all countries will not be admitted to the U.S. for at least 120 days. Widespread dissent followed Trump’s order: thousands of protesters hit major airports and city streets around the country; Democrats, and many Republicans spoke out; and many religious and business leaders decried the order.

Late Monday afternoon, Yates sent a letter to Justice Department lawyers:

I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

According to Justice Department officials, Yates had been struggling with how to respond to Trump’s divisive order, and had even considered resigning. Trump responded to Yates’ defiance in a Twitter post last night, a few hours before she was fired:

The Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 31, 2017

Monday evening, at about 9:15 p.m., Yates received a hand-written letter from the White House, stating: “the president has removed you from the office of Deputy Attorney General of the United States.” Soon after, a statement by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Yates “is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.”

Spicer defended Trump’s executive order, which was approved by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel “with respect to form and legality.” Spicer said: “Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.”

Attorneys general have resigned from their posts over the past few decades, but it is quite rare for one to be fired. In fact, the last time this happened was in 1973, during the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, when President Richard Nixon fired his attorney general and deputy attorney general. They were fired because they refused to dismiss the special prosecutor in the Watergate case.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Sally Yates and Why Did President Trump Fire Her? appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) faced the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and Wednesday for a confirmation hearing, kicking off a week of hearings for President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. In the hearing, Sessions, Trump’s selection for attorney general, denied allegations of racism, and highlighted a career spent defending civil rights and combating crime. Protesters, some of whom were dressed in the white-hooded garb of the Ku Klux Klan, repeatedly interrupted the hearing.

The hearing opened with prepared remarks from Sessions, 70, who highlighted his 14-year record arguing criminal cases as an attorney. He also lamented the recent rise in violent crime in America, and marked it as an issue he would tackle as attorney general. “Protecting the people of this country from crime, and especially from violent crime, is the high calling of the men and women of the Department of Justice,” he said. “Today, I am afraid, that has become more important than ever.”

Diverging Beliefs or Duty?

During the hearing, Sessions was adamant about the role of the Justice Department in upholding the nation’s laws, even when they diverged with his, or Trump’s, personal ideology. For example, as a senator, Sessions opposed same-sex marriage, but on Tuesday he said he would acknowledge the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that essentially legalized gay marriage. He also firmly opposed the idea of a Muslim immigration ban, but did say, as Trump has, that immigrants from countries with a history of terrorism could be barred from entering the country.

Weed Watch

In recent weeks, marijuana activists have vocally opposed Trump’s nomination of Sessions, who once said, “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” On Tuesday afternoon, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Sessions if he would enforce the federal marijuana ban at the state level. “I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law but, absolutely, it’s a problem of resources for the federal government,” Sessions replied. He didn’t offer many specifics on how he’d address the issue, aside from saying he would use “good judgment.”

Allegations of Racism

Sessions, an early, ardent supporter of Trump, also sought to correct the “caricature” of him as a Southern racist. “You have a Southern name; you come from South Alabama, that sounds worse to some people,” he said. Since he was nominated as the nation’s top prosecutor in November, Sessions has come under fire for comments he has made over the years. As a federal attorney in the 1980s, Sessions said the KKK “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” He also reportedly referred to Thomas Figures, an assistant federal attorney at the time, and a black man, as “boy.”

But Sessions denied harboring any sympathy for the Klan. “I abhor the Klan and what it represents and its hateful ideology,” he said in his opening remarks. He added: “I deeply understand the history of civil rights and the horrendous impact that relentless and systemic discrimination and the denial of voting rights has had on our African-American brothers and sisters. I have witnessed it.”

What About Hillary?

On Hillary Clinton, who he vociferously denounced during the campaign, Sessions said he would not personally oversee any further investigations into her email server or foundation. Instead, he said, he would appoint a special prosecutor if the department decided to pursue her further. “We can never have a political dispute turn into a criminal dispute,” he said. “This country does not punish its political enemies but this country ensures that no one is above the law.”

Historic Dissension

And in an unprecedented move, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), along with Representative John Lewis (D-GA) and Representative Cedric Richmond (D-LA), testified against Sessions. “I do not take lightly the decision to testify against a Senate colleague,” said Booker, who some suspect will run for president in 2020. “But the immense powers of the Attorney General combined with the deeply troubling views of this nominee is a call to conscience.”

Among other views, Booker opposes  Sessions as the next attorney general for his “failure to defend the civil rights of women, minorities and LGBT Americans to his opposition to common sense, bipartisan immigration reform.” In February 2016, Booker said he was “blessed and honored” to partner with Sessions during a ceremony commemorating the 1965 Selma march.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happened at Senator Jeff Sessions’ Confirmation Hearing? appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, will face the Senate in a confirmation hearing on Tuesday. In an effort spearheaded by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), pro-marijuana groups are asking supporters to call their senators on Monday, and let them know that they will not stand for any aggressive enforcement actions taken by Sessions, who once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

“Senator Sessions’ views are out of step with mainstream America and they are in conflict with laws throughout a majority of states,” said NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri in a statement. “We must demand that Senators on the Judiciary Committee ask this nominee whether he intends to respect the will of the voters in these states and whether he truly believes that no ‘good people’ have ever smoked pot.” The “Day of Action” included the Twitter campaign #JustSayNoToSessions:

.@SenBobCasey @SenToomey you guys gotta #JustSayNoToSessions! Please, do not let this guy gain any more power, lest our country suffer more

— Derek Rosenzweig (@ozzyogkush) January 9, 2017

Since Trump’s announcement in November, Sessions has come under fire for disparaging comments he has made in the past in regard to marijuana. In the 1980s, while serving as a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sessions said he thought the Ku Klux Klan “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” He later said those remarks were a joke. Sessions has also called marijuana reform “a tragic mistake.”

Marijuana laws around the country are loosening: more than a quarter of all Americans live in a state with either recreational or medical marijuana legalized. Most recently, on Election Day, eight states passed ballot measures to legalize recreational or medical marijuana. But at the federal level, marijuana remains an illegal substance, classified in the same group as heroin and LSD.

@NORML I called Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington State. Put down your bongs, pick up your phones, and speak up

— DonSativa (@MrPandejo) January 9, 2017

Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the attorney general under President Barack Obama, did not aggressively enforce the federal marijuana ban at the state level. But now, as Sessions prepares to lead the Justice Department, marijuana proponents worry that he could order raids on growing facilities, and arrest dispensary owners in the name of the federal ban. While he has not made any mention of how he might enforce the federal law in regard to marijuana, Sessions will have power to clamp down if he wishes.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pro-Marijuana Group Gives Jeff Sessions an Earful Before Confirmation Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

For the thousands of people planning to flood the National Mall on Inauguration Day, to cheer or to jeer, a D.C.-based group has an idea to ease the potentially tense atmosphere: free marijuana joints. The D.C. Cannabis Coalition, an activist organization in a city where recreational marijuana is (mostly) legal, will be handing out thousands of joints on the morning of January 20. On the west side of Dupont Circle, the group will hand out coffee and tea, and at 10 a.m., begin to march south toward the National Mall, handing out joints along the way.

The group has a cache of 4,200 joints, and at 4 minutes and 20 seconds into Trump’s speech, marchers are encouraged to light their joints.”The main message is it’s time to legalize cannabis at the federal level,” said Adam Eidinger, the founder of DCMJ, a DC Cannabis Coalition partner and the group that drafted the initiative that legalized recreational pot in the capital.

Eidinger acknowledged that protesters would be breaking the law if they smoked in public, and on federal land, but he encouraged it as “a form of civil disobedience.” He said: “I think it’s a good protest. If someone wants to do it, they are risking arrest, but it’s a protest and you know what, the National Mall is a place for protest.”

Eidinger said the protest was welcome to Trump supporters and opponents alike, and is aimed more at pushing to recognize marijuana as a legal substance at the federal level than anything else. Cannabis, though legal in some form in a majority of states and D.C., is banned by the federal government. And DCMJ is no fan of Trump’s appointee for attorney general, Jeff Sessions.

In late November, when Trump announced Sessions as his choice for attorney general, DCMJ called the former Alabama senator “one of the biggest prohibitionists in Congress.” The group added: “We can’t idly sit by and watch all the hard work we’ve done to legalize cannabis in DC be eroded by an out of touch prohibitionist!” But the joint giveaway is not all about protesting Sessions, or Trump, or the federal marijuana ban. “This is really a gift for people who come to Washington, D.C.,” Eidinger said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis Group to Hand Out Thousands of Free Joints on Inauguration Day appeared first on Law Street.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop the recount of election ballots that Green Party leader Jill Stein has initiated. His argument is that it is expensive and could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. The recount in Michigan has not started yet, and Schuette asked the Michigan Board of Canvassers to reject Stein’s request, claiming that she doesn’t have any evidence of fraud or errors. Since it is pretty urgent, he also filed an emergency motion with the Michigan Supreme Court to look at the issue immediately. “We have asked the court to end the recount which Stein is pursuing in violation of Michigan laws that protect the integrity of our elections,” he said.

It is inexcusable for Stein to put MI votes at risk of paying millions and potentially losing their voice in the Elec College.

— A.G. Bill Schuette (@SchuetteOnDuty) December 2, 2016

The lawsuit says that Stein received only about 50,000 votes of the 4.7 million votes cast in Michigan, and yet she wants a recount to make sure that was the right result. It claims that it will cost taxpayers millions of dollars and criticizes the fact that she waited until three weeks after the election and then requested a recount by hand, which will take a very long time.

But Stein’s campaign paid the fee for filing the request in full, almost $1 million, and has also raised more than $6 million in just a few days to cover the recounts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Her argument for doing so has nothing to do with believing she could win the election; rather it is about transparency and fairness. She wrote in an op-ed in USA Today on Thursday:

In the age of computerized voting machines and unprecedented corporate influence in our elections, our electoral system is under increasing threat. How can every citizen’s voice be heard if we do not know if every citizen’s vote is counted correctly?

Also on Friday, the Board of State Canvassers in Michigan failed to reach an agreement on another objection to the recount effort, this time by Trump’s lawyers. Since the vote was 2-2, the requested recount could theoretically start as early as the beginning of next week. But it all depends on what happens with Schuette’s lawsuit.

The recounts Americans are calling for will help restore trust in our democracy. They’ll also point us to reforms that safeguard that trust.

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) December 2, 2016

Stein bashed the lawsuit, calling it a politically motivated attempt to side with Trump, and said: “Our democracy allows for recounts to ensure the accuracy and security of elections, and today’s move by the Attorney General is yet another frivolous attempt to obstruct this legal process.”

She pointed out that a miscount doesn’t need to have been made on purpose, but as with anything that has to do with machines, glitches do happen. In 2004, 90,000 votes remained uncounted because of calibration problems with the machines in a county in Ohio. Who knows if anything else could be wrong?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michigan Attorney General Files Lawsuit to Stop Election Recount appeared first on Law Street.

Apparently, Domino’s workers aren’t getting a big enough slice of the pie. Domino’s Pizza is being sued by New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman for wage theft. Schneiderman’s allegations focus specifically on a payment system called Pulse, which Domino’s Corporate encourages each Domino’s franchisee to use. The Pulse computer system calculates gross wages for the workers at each location, and has apparently under-calculated those values for years. Schneiderman asserts that Dominos has been aware of this under-payment issue since 2007. By failing to announce to its franchisees that the wage totals given by the system are slimmer than they should be, Domino’s could be on the hook for withholding wages.

Like a pizza-focused Erin Brockovich, the Attorney General uncovered internal documents from Domino’s corporate office showing that 78 percent of New York franchisees’ payment systems displayed rates for some employees below the required minimum wage. Even more systems had lower overtime rates than are required. This is just the latest example of the Attorney General going after companies on wage issues—since 2011 the Attorney General has secured more than $26 million for almost 20,000 workers who were cheated out of wages.

Can Domino’s be held responsible for wage theft at a specific franchisee’s location? This lawsuit argues that yes, that because Domino’s is a ‘joint employer’ of the workers, the franchise company is also responsible. A decision like this could significantly affect the way fast food restaurants around the country are run. If a judge does find that Domino’s operates as a joint employer, other fast food corporations like McDonald’s may reconsider their franchise-based structure. The argument is that if you can be held responsible for the missteps of your franchisees, why not have total control in the first place and reduce that risk?

While the local shop franchisees need to pay the owed wages to the affected workers, it remains to be decided whether Domino’s corporate office is at fault, but you’d think they could easily correct the wages discrepancies. After all, they have a lot of experience raising dough.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Domino’s Accused of Wage Theft: What Does this Mean for Franchises? appeared first on Law Street.

An aide for Democratic California Attorney General Kamala Harris has been arrested for posing as a police officer while heading a  mysterious “Masonic” police force that he claims dates back 3,000 years.

Brandon Keil, 31, was placed on administrative leave from his position as deputy director of community affairs for the California Justice Department, which Harris heads, after news of the scandal broke. According to the LA Times, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department claims that he along with two others, David Henry and Tonette Haye, were arrested last week after suspicions came to light that the trio was illegally impersonating police officers through their roles in the Masonic Fraternal Police Department.

Aide to state AG Kamala Harris , 2 others arrested after allegedly creating fake police force http://t.co/L6AYHtP0b9 pic.twitter.com/mldidpa8t0

— KTLA (@KTLA) May 6, 2015

According to site claiming to be the Masonic Fraternal Police Department’s official site, the force claims to have traced its origins back to 1100 BC when it was created by a medieval Christian military order, the Knights Templar. The group claims they have jurisdictions in 33 states and Mexico and that the only difference between them and other police departments is that they “were here first.” The site goes on to say,

We are born into this Organization our bloodlines go deeper then an application. This is more then a job it is an obligation.

However it seems like the real police disagreed. The trio first appeared on the police’s radar after letters were reportedly mailed to various police chiefs in Southern California announcing that Kiel had been named the police force’s “chief deputy director.” Kiel apparently even called various law enforcement agencies to schedule in-person meetings, a bizarre move that clearly led to his arrest. The LA Times writes,

Sheriff’s Capt. Roosevelt Johnson, who heads the department’s Santa Clarita Valley station, met with members of the group and became wary after they could not provide rudimentary information about the group’s aims, the officials said.

When sheriff’s investigators searched the homes of the three they apparently found badges, weapons, uniforms, and law enforcement paraphernalia.

In January Harris announced she planned to run for Senate in 2016, vying for the seat that will soon be vacated by Senator Barbara Boxer. It’s highly unlikely her aide’s odd fake-police pastime will affect the Democratic rising star’s Senate run, but all this weird negative press is certainly far from ideal.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kamala Harris Aide in Trouble for Bizarre Pastime appeared first on Law Street.

One of the markers of the current political climate is the animosity between President Obama and Congress. One of the manifestations of this climate can be seen in the fact that Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General has continued to languish in the halls of the Senate. If his remarks at a recent press conference are any indication, President Obama has had enough.

Loretta Lynch was nominated for the position of Attorney General nearly six months ago on November 8, 2014, but her nomination has been held up in the Senate since that point. There aren’t really any substantive reasons though, as no one seems to have any objections to Lynch’s qualifications for the job. While there are some concerns over her opinions on President Obama’s immigration reform, it seems like she’ll eventually be confirmed. It’s just a matter of when at this point.

The when is difficult though, as her nomination is being held up until a bill on human trafficking is settled, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Democrats, however, object to the bill because it contains a provision that prevents any money from the crime victims’ compensation fund from being spent on abortion services. Not only do many Senate Democrats object to the provision on moral grounds, they also claim that the Republicans surprised them by adding that provision to the bill without consulting them. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated,

I don’t know how that happened or who was the author of it. But the fact is, the bill that is on the floor today has a provision in it that we were told would not be included.

However, until this matter is solved, McConnell has said that they won’t vote on Lynch’s nomination. He’s framed it as a matter of priority–it’s important to finish a bill that will help trafficking victims before moving on to Lynch’s nomination. But it’s become a game of political chicken, and her nomination is caught right in the middle.

A sense of frustration and exasperation is exactly what the President expressed in a press conference Froday when speaking about the hold ups to the Lynch nomination. He emphatically stated,

Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote, get her confirmed, let her do her job. This is embarrassing. There are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it.

Regardless of Obama’s impassioned statements, it’s highly doubtful that his remarks will have any effect on the GOP Senators’ actions. Especially after the fights over the Iran deal and Obama’s immigration reform, there’s no real lost love between the executive and legislative branches. Lynch’s nomination will probably remain in limbo, at least for now.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Lashes Out at Senate Over Loretta Lynch Confirmation Hold Up appeared first on Law Street.

Heroin addiction is a scary reality for many Americans. It’s often an ongoing roller coaster involving several rehab stints, withdrawal, and lifelong addiction struggles. And it’s unfortunately becoming a more common phenomenon. Today, the drug is no longer an outlier compared to its competitors.  It has been identified by some as the new drug of the upper-middle class. Is this a fair assessment? Here are the facts.

What is heroin?

Heroin received its name from the “hero-like,” invincible effect the drug provides its user. It is also called by other names on the street including: H, Junk, Smack, Big H, Hell Dust, and countless others. Additives can change the color from white (pure heroin) to rose gray, brown, or black. Heroin can be laced with a variety of poisons and/or other drugs. It is injected, smoked, and snorted.

What is the science behind heroin?

From a scientific perspective:

Heroin is an opiate made from the chemical morphine, which is extracted from the dried latex of the opium poppy. Morphine is extracted from the opium latex, and these chemicals are used to make opiates, such as heroin, diamorphine and methadone. Heroin is the 3,6-diacetyl derivative of morphine (hence diacetylmorphine) and is synthesised from it by acetylation.

So what does that mean? Essentially, heroin is an opiate–a drug created from opium that sedates, tranquilizes, and/or depresses the body. It’s similar to a common base in a variety of pain killers–morphine. Opium comes from the cultivation of poppy seeds.

Effects of Heroin                                                     

Heroin users report several effects that differ based on the individual. Heroin can cause a temporary state of euphoria, safety, warmth, and sexual arousal. It can also create a sense of disconnect from other people, causing a dreamlike state and/or sense of floating. It is a depressant, rather than stimulant like cocaine, and it can be used as a self-medicated pain reliever.

Adversely, users can immediately experience vomiting, coughing, constipation, hypothermia, severe itching, and inability to orgasm. Long-term effects include rotten teeth, cold sweats, weakening of the immune system, respiratory illnesses, depression, loss of appetite, insomnia, and tuberculosis. Although this is not a direct effect, the sharing of needles from intravenous injection can often lead to AIDS, Hepatitis C, and other fatal infections.

After the effects wear off, users will start to feel extreme withdrawal symptoms if another dose is not administered. The symptoms of withdrawal can include “restlessness, aches and pains in the bones, diarrhea, vomiting, and severe discomfort.”

How do Americans get heroin?

Afghanistan is the “world’s largest exporter,” producing over 80 percent of the world’s opium. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Afghan poppy cultivation and opium industry amassed $3 billion in 2013, a 50 percent increase from 2012.

Overall, Mexico is the largest drug supplier to the United States. Specifically, Mexico produces Black Tar Heroin, one of the “most dangerous and addictive forms of heroin to date.” This variety looks more similar to hash than powder and can cause sclerosis and severe bacterial infections.

Colombia is the second largest Latin American supplier to the United States. Colombian cartels historically distribute from New York City and are in “full control of the heroin market in the Eastern United States.”

The “Golden Triangle” includes the countries of Burma, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Before the escalation of the Afghan opium market, these southeastern Asian countries reigned over the world’s opium production.

Is it true that middle class heroin use is on the rise?

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study in 2014 about the changing demographics of heroin users in the last 50 years. Over 2,800 people entering treatment programs participated in self-surveys and extensive interviews.

The results do seem to indicate that heroin is transitioning to the middle class. It is leaving the big cities and becoming more mainstream in the suburbs. Of course, there has been heroin drug use in suburbia before; however, now there is a marked increase.

In the 1960s, the average heroin user was a young man (average age of 16.5) living in a large urban area. Eighty percent of these men’s first experiences with an opioid was heroine. Today, the average heroin user is either a male or female in their twenties (average age of 23). Now, 75.2 percent of these users live in non-urban areas and 75 percent first experienced an opioid through prescription drugs. Almost 90 percent of first-time heroin users in the last ten years were white.

In New York City, doctors and drug counselors report a significant increase in professionals and college students with heroin addictions, while emergency rooms also report an increase in opiate overdoses. In Washington D.C., there has been a 55 percent increase in overdoses since 2010.

Why Heroin?

With all this information readily available through school systems and the internet, why is the educated, middle class turning to heroin? Factors may include increases in depression, exposure to painkillers, and acceptance. The perception of the heroin junkie has changed. A user can snort heroin (bypassing the track marks from injection) and go undetected by those around. It can be a clandestine affair–an appealing notion if the user does want to keep their drug use secret.

Anxiety disorders are the largest mental illness in the United States today, affecting more than 40 million Americans. In a country that loves to self-medicate, heroin offers a false yet accessible reprieve from anxiety and depression.

Prescription drug users also move to heroin. Prescription drugs are expensive and only legally last for the prescribed amount of time. To name a few, these gateway prescriptions drugs come in the forms of hydrocodone (Vicodin), fentanyl (Duragesic), and oxycodone (OxyContin). From 1999-2008, prescription narcotic sales increased 300 percent in the United States. Unlike these expensive prescriptions, a bag with approximately a quarter-sized amount of heroin can be sold for $10 off the streets. The transition isn’t hard to imagine, especially when the desired effects are similar.

Case Study: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Young upper-middle class adults are generally perceived as being granted every opportunity and foundation for success. Parents can afford a comfortable lifestyle and access to decent education for their children. So the question continues: why are so many from this walk of life turning to heroin? Through the funding of the Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project, the Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy conducted a report Understanding Suburban Heroin Use, to “demonstrate the nuanced nature of risk and protective factors among the heroin interviewees.” A risk factor puts a person in danger of using heroin, while a protective factor reduces the chance of use.

The overriding connection among the interviewees is the “experienced degree of detachment between parent and child and the overall lack of communication.” Contrary to common stereotypes, verbal, physical, and/or earlier drug abuse wasn’t vital in providing a pathway to heroin. A large portion of the answers, proved in these case studies, seem to be the previous emotional health of the users.

Example One

Interviewee one is a 31-year-old male who transitioned from pills to heroin. He is described as athletic, articulate, and candid. He was raised in an upper-middle class Chicago suburb. Although his family was close and intact, he experienced a sense of loneliness. His parents practiced a more hands-off approach to parenting that made him feel like an adult at an early age. His parents didn’t drink or abuse drugs during his childhood. His brother was diagnosed with ADHD, while he was not, although he experienced “restlessness.”

He was caught smoking marijuana at age 14 by his father, quit for a couple months, then resumed. His parents assumed he remained clean because he received good grades and they liked his group of friends. At age 17, he chose to work rather than attend college after graduating high school a semester early. He was earning almost as much income as his father. At 17, he tried his first opioid with a friend whose medical condition allowed easy access to OxyContin. When the prescription ran dry, they turned to heroine. He rationalized the transition thinking if he could handle OxyContin, he could handle heroin. Six months later, he was using approximately $100 worth of heroin daily and eventually moved to violent and illegal actions to sustain his supply. He admitted:

Heroin gave me something. It made me feel the best I have ever felt…Maybe I think love was missing. Like, love. I think. I that, uh, because I always felt like alone. Like even though I had good family, I always felt alone. Different.

Example Two

Interviewee two is a 27-year-old female from the western suburbs of Illinois. She is described as attractive, cheerful, and helpful. She was raised in an educated, wealthy family. She was a cheerleader in high school and earned good grades. There aren’t any psychological or substance abuse problems in her family. She felt disconnected from her siblings as they were much older and felt distant from her parents, as well. Her parents often “bickered” but never had big fights. When she confided in her mother as a child that she might be depressed, her mother seemingly brushed it off.

She started smoking pot in junior high at age 15. Although social, her group of friends was not part of the most popular crowd. This was a constant concern. She maintained a B average and continued with sports, while starting to smoke marijuana every day. An after-school job paid for this habit. When her parents found drug paraphernalia in her room, they didn’t probe the situation and just sent her to her room. Searching for a personal connection, she started dating an older boy. She connected with his parents in a way she could not with her own. During senior year, they both started using cocaine, which became a daily habit. She eventually transitioned to heroin, because as she put it in an answer to one question:

Heroin made me feel real mellow like I had not a care in the world. I had a lot of “what am I doing with my life” and physical pain that I was covering up.

After losing her job, she pawned her belongings with a variety of her parents’ things, and stole from others. She refrained from turning to prostitution, although she heard of other girls going down that road. She finally sought out help after witnessing her boyfriend get pistol-whipped and robbed during a drug exchange.

What does this tell us about heroin use?

There are similarities and differences to all of the case studies in this project. In these two examples, the users come from seemingly sturdy homes and backgrounds. The stereotypes of drug users aren’t present in these cases; however, they both felt distant from the people around them at an early age in life. They also wanted to avoid internal and external pressures. This glimpse into the lives of users offers some potential answers to the question of why relatively well educated, middleclass Americans may turn to heroin.

Fighting Back

In March 2014, the United States Department of Justice and the Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to take action against the “urgent public health crisis” of heroin and prescription opiates. Holder claimed that between 2006-2010, there was a 45 percent increase in heroin overdoses. To start, Holder pushed law enforcement agencies to carry the “overdose-reversal drug” Naloxone and urged the public to watch the educational documentary “The Opiate Effect.” Holder also outlined the DEA plan as follows:

Since 2011, DEA has opened more than 4,500 investigations related to heroin. They’re on track to open many more. And as a result of these aggressive enforcement efforts, the amount of heroin seized along America’s southwest border increased by more than 320 percent between 2008 and 2013…enforcement alone won’t solve the problem. That’s why we are enlisting a variety of partners – including doctors, educators, community leaders, and police officials – to increase our support for education, prevention, and treatment.

Conclusion

Heroin has seen a migration to the middle class. But what can we do to stop it? Many of these new users are already educated on the adverse effects of heroin and know the bottom line. A fear of health concerns isn’t enough. We need to stop it at the source, whether it is gateway prescription drugs or emotional health. Substance abuse is a disease to be cured, not the label of a criminal. The Affordable Care Act and Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act aim to expand behavioral health coverage for 62.5 million people by 2020. Every addict, regardless of demographics, should have the ability and necessary tools to recover.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Justice Department: Attorney General Holder, Calling Rise in Heroin Overdoses ‘Urgent Public Health Crisis,’ Vows Mix of Enforcement, Treatment

JAMA Psychiatry Releases: Demographics of Heroin Users Change in Past 50 Years

Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Additional

About Health: What Heroin Effects Feel Like

Anxiety and Depression Association of America: Facts & Statistics

The New York Times: The Middle Class Rediscovers Heroin

Original Network of Resources on Heroin: Heroin By Area of Origin

RT: America’s $7.6 Billion War on Afghan Drugs Fails, Opium Production Peaks

Tech Times: Study Profiles New American Heroin Addicts

Foundation For a Drug Free World: The Truth about Heroin

WTOP: Heroin Use Rises in D.C. Among Middle, Upper Class

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heroin: The New Drug of the Middle Class? appeared first on Law Street.

The amount of prison time doled out by courts to perpetrators of non-violent, drug crimes are often excessively severe, sometimes more than 100 years in prison. In one particular case, a man was sentenced to a lifetime behind bars for possessing a bag with traces of cocaine. In another case, a man with no prior record is now serving a 25-year prison term for selling his pain pills to an undercover informant. These two individuals are just a few of the many serving years in prison due to harsh mandatory sentencing laws.

Keeping non violent criminals incarcerated for decades leads to overcrowded conditions and billions of taxpayer dollars. The mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses have led to prisons vastly exceeding their maximum capacity. The United States has seen a 500 percent increase in the number of inmates in federal custody over the last 30 years.

The goal of these harsh laws is to deter would-be criminals from committing crimes when they realize that they could spend for the rest of their lives behind bars. This plan sounds good in theory, but has failed in practice. Hosting them is not cheap; it costs around $50,000 to keep one person in prison for one year in California alone. Although America has only five percent of the world’s population, it hosts 25 percent of the world’s prison inmates.

The issue of overcrowded prisons is alarmingly prominent in the United States, as other countries have adopted more effective means of dealing with individuals who commit minor offenses. For example, in 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, and since then many countries around the world have followed suit. Drug users in Portugal are also provided with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute found that in the five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers declined, the rate of HIV infections transmitted via drug use dropped, deaths related to hard drugs were cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction doubled.

Finally, the United States has realized the gravity of the situation and decided to take action. Recently, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin and Senator Mike Lee introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act to reduce the number of harsh drug sentencing policies in the United States. Essentially, the goal of the Smarter Sentencing Act is to reserve the use of federal resources for the offenders of the most serious crimes. Lawmakers supporting this bill hope that it will cause judges to use less harsh punishments such as community service or drug therapy. Making these changes could save taxpayers billions in the first years of enactment alone.

Specifically, the Smarter Sentencing Act would amend the federal criminal code so that defendants without prior record who did not commit a violent crime receive a less severe sentence. The bill also aims to reduce the chance that prisons reach their maximum capacities and lower prison housing costs.

How would the Smarter Sentencing Act impact current laws?

Under current guidelines, a first-time drug offense involving at least 10 but not more than 20 grams of methamphetamine has a recommended sentence range of 27-33 months. Under the new guidelines, the same quantity of methamphetamine would have a sentence range for a first-time offense of 21-27 months.

Attorney General Eric Holder is urging lawmakers to fast track a solution to this problem, stating that “this over-reliance on incarceration is not just financially unsustainable. It comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.”

Because Democrats and Republicans agree that the extreme sentencing problem is a serious one, prospects are good that this bill has a chance for success. Both parties more or less concede that there is a problem when looking at the prison system in the United States. Former Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan is one of the prominent conservatives expressing his support for reform of current mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

I think we had a trend in America for a long time on mandatory minimums where we took away discretion from judges. I think there’s an appreciation that that approach has some collateral damage—that that approach is missing in many ways…I think there is a new appreciation that we need to give judges more discretion in these areas.

-Paul Ryan

The push to pass the Smarter Sentencing Act is gaining momentum, as almost a year has passed since its introduction in the House in October 2013. Hopefully, with continued support for this legislation, it will soon become law and alleviate the growing problems associated with extreme mandatory minimum drug sentences.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Barnellbe via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Nearing the End of Failed Mandatory Minimum Sentences? appeared first on Law Street.

Although the United States was founded to escape a monarch and royal family, it is irrefutable that certain families have dominated the American political spectrum. Surnames have transformed into a sort of brand for these families through money, publicity, talent, or a combination of them all. As of October 2013, 37 members of Congress had a relative who had previously served in Congress. Some of the most discussed names of potential candidates for the 2016 presidential election are those shared with former presidents. The scope of power and attention each of these families has acquired through the years is a testament to America’s fascination with celebrity figures.

The Kennedy Family

Perhaps one of the most iconic families in American politics, the Kennedys have shaped the country over several generations. The first, Patrick Joseph “P.J.” Kennedy, was a savvy businessman born to Irish Catholic immigrants. As a young man, he worked on the Boston docks to support his three sisters and widowed mother. P.J. built a name and fortune for himself, eventually entering the political realm. He served five consecutive one-year terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, followed by three two-year terms in the state senate. His political aspirations went beyond his own career, influencing and pushing for his children to reach the highest office in the country.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (“Jack”, “JFK”)

P.J.’s eldest son, Joseph Patrick “Joe” Kennedy, Jr., was expected to become president, but those plans were derailed when Joe Jr. was killed in action during WWII. His father’s aspirations then fell upon a younger son, John F. Kennedy.

After serving in the U.S. Navy, JFK was elected to the House of Representatives from Massachusetts’ eleventh district for six years, followed by a stint as a Senator fro the same state until he was elected president. To this day, he is the only Roman Catholic president and the only one to have won a Pulitzer Prize. He was also the youngest elected to office, inaugurated at just 43 years old.

JFK’s presidency was dominated by the Cold War. He is known for the failed military invasion in Bay of Pigs, which damaged his administration’s image; however, the Cuban Missile Crisis restored faith in his presidency. JFK also started the Peace Corps, and supported racial integration and the civil rights movement.

Only two years and ten months passed between his inauguration and assassination, yet to this day he remains one of the most celebrated and idolized figures in American history.

Robert Francis Kennedy (“Bobby,” “RFK”)

Jack’s younger brother Robert served as his campaign manager and White House advisor during the presidency. Bobby’s authority over cabinet departments led the press to call him, “Bobby – Washington’s No. two man.” JFK appointed him as Attorney General, causing controversy as critics claimed he was unqualified and inexperienced.

His position as AG allowed him to advocate for the  Civil Rights Movement. The sense of urgency for racial equality that RFK projected greatly influenced the President.

After JFK’s assassination, Robert became senator of New York and then began campaigning for presidency. He was shot and killed the night he won the California primary while leaving the ballroom where he had addressed his supporters.

Edward Moore “Ted” Kennedy

Edward was the youngest Kennedy and far outlived his brothers. He was the third-longest serving senator in America, having represented the state of Massachusetts for nearly 47 years. During his time in the Senate, he was chairman and member of many different committees.

The presidency was not a realistic goal for Ted after the Chappaquiddick incident, in which a young woman was killed. Despite this tragedy, he attempted to run in the 1980; however, he lost the Democratic primary to President Jimmy Carter.

The Next Generations

The privileges and opportunities afforded to members of the Kennedy family are vast.  While many descendants of the Kennedys have served at various levels government, these are some of the more notable examples:

Caroline Bouvier Kennedy

Caroline is the only surviving child of JFK and Jackie since her brother, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., was killed in a plane crash in 1999. There were talks of “John John” following in his father’s political footsteps before his untimely death. President Obama appointed Caroline as United States Ambassador to Japan in 2013.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

Eldest child of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland from 1995 to 2003.

Joseph P. Kennedy II

The former U.S. Representative for Massachusetts’ eighth district, RFK’s eldest son served in office from 1987 until 1999.

Joseph P. Kennedy III

Son of Joseph P. Kennedy II and grandson of RFK, he was elected to Massachusetts’ fourth congressional district in 2012.

Patrick J. Kennedy II

The only child of Ted Kennedy to enter politics, he served as U.S. Representative for Rhode Island’s first Congressional district for 16 years. When Patrick decided not to run for reelection, which was prior to Joseph P. Kennedy III’s service, it was the first time Washington was without a Kennedy in office in 60 years.

John Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg

Although still an undergrad at Yale University, JFK’s only grandson has already discussed pursuing a future career in politics. “Jack” has already interned on Capitol Hill for John Kerry and writes political commentary for Yale publications and CNN.

The Bush family in the Red Room of the White House

The Bush Family

While the Kennedys are royalty among liberals, the Bush family is champion of the right. Two Governors, two U.S. Senators, one Supreme Court Justice, one Vice President, and two Presidents make up their lineage. Various business achievements have created a net worth of $60 million. Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, said that the Bushes have “got to be considered the most successful political dynasty in American history.”

David Davis

Davis started the political dynasty serving as Abraham Lincoln’s campaign manager. Once Lincoln was elected, David received a recess appointment to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. He was an associate justice from 1862 to 1877. He is first cousin three times removed to George H. W. Bush’s generation.

Prescott Bush

Prescott Bush was the father of George H. W. Bush and grandfather of George W. and Jeb Bush. Prescott became a profitable businessman before becoming a U.S. Senator from Connecticut from 1952 to 1963.

George H.W. Bush

Commonly referred to as Bush Sr. since his son’s administration, the elder Bush enlisted in the U.S. Navy before attending Yale. Bush Sr. moved his family to Texas and became a prominent member of the oil industry. He had become a millionaire before the age of 40.

Prior to his presidency, Bush Sr. held various positions including: Member of the House of Representatives, Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the Liaison Office to the People’s Republic of China, Director of Central Intelligence, and Vice President to Ronald Reagan.

Following his inauguration in 1989, his administration was instrumental to changes both domestically and abroad. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Berlin Wall happened in the earlier stages of his presidency. The United States was involved in the Gulf War during this time as well. At home, Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which led to a 40 percent increase in legal immigration to the United States. Bush St. lost his campaign for a second term to Bill Clinton.

George W. Bush

Following in his father’s footsteps, George W. Bush entered both the oil industry and political arena. George W. worked on his father’s presidential campaign, and then joined others in purchasing the Texas Rangers. He made history as Governor of Texas by becoming the first Governor to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2011 transformed George W. into a wartime president. They propelled the United States into the War on Terror and the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Approval ratings for George W. landed on both ends of the spectrum. During the 2008 financial crisis they were one of the lowest on record, while following the events of 9/11 they were the highest in history. To this day, George W. Bush’s legacy is split between those who praise him and those who view him as catastrophic for the country.

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush

George W. Bush’s younger brother Jeb served as Governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. Jeb was the first and only Republican to serve two full four-year terms as Governor of Florida. Republicans are hopeful for a Bush 2016 campaign in the next presidential cycle, and Jeb has acknowledged that he is thinking about running. There are many factors that will decide the younger Bush’s next steps, such as immediate family wishes and if he predicts he could run a successful campaign.

The Clinton Family

While not technically a dynasty yet, the Clinton family continues to be influential in the world of politics, philanthropy, and advocacy.

William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton

Unlike President Kennedy and Bush, Bill Clinton was not born into a family of wealth. He grew up in a modest home in Arkansas before earning scholarships to Georgetown and Yale Universities.

Clinton entered public service through election as Arkansas Attorney General prior to his election as Governor of Arkansas. He was inaugurated as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993. Clinton quickly gained popularity with the public by signing into law the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. A major disappointment of his presidency, the inability to create a national health care system spearheaded by the First Lady, plagued his administration. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton in 1998 following the Monica Lewinsky scandal on alleged acts of obstruction of justice and perjury. The Senate voted to acquit Clinton on both charges. Despite the impeachment, Clinton left office with an approval rating of 66 percent.

Since leaving office, President Clinton has been active in philanthropic endeavors. The William J. Clinton Foundation (renamed in 2013 as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation) was founded in 2001 to, “Bring people together to take on the biggest challenges of the 21st century.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary’s time as First Lady was influential and has had lasting impacts. She played a central role in shaping the course of her husband’s administration. Hillary used her position to help pass legislation such as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Foster Care Independence Act, and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Her time spent as a United States Senator from New York was also filled with progress. She served on five Senate committees with nine subcommittee assignments. President Obama nominated Hillary to the position of Secretary of State in 2009, and she served in this capacity until 2013.

Hillary ran for president in 2008, but ended her campaign to endorse future President Obama. Many Democrats hope she will run again in 2016, and there is already a campaign-in-waiting in place if she formally decides to run.

Chelsea Clinton

As the only child of Bill and Hillary, Chelsea has been in the public eye her entire life. She has worked for NBC as a special correspondent, and works closely with the Clinton Foundation as Vice Chairwoman.

Negative Aspects of Family Dynasties

The 2012 presidential election was the first since 1976 in which a member of the Bush or Clinton families was not a presidential or a vice presidential candidate; however, a recent poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News finds that 69 percent of Americans would prefer that neither a Bush nor a Clinton dominate the 2016 presidential race. This implies that Americans dislike family dynasties, yet they continue to elect them. Why is that? It’s easier to vote for a familiar name, regardless of the actions of its predecessor. By nature budding politicians who are raised in the spotlight have an easier time building a political career, as the public and potential donors will take their campaign more seriously and feel an instant connection.

Kennedy

Following the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as Ambassador to Japan, speculations rose regarding if she deserved the position or if sharing the high-profile Kennedy name prompted the assignment. It would benefit the Obama Administration to have a member of one of the most beloved Democrat families representing him and the country. Japan is an advanced nation, so her position would not be as challenging compared to being placed in a country ensnared in domestic or international conflicts.

Bush

While in many instances being related to former politicians is a blessing, for potential presidential nominee Jeb Bush having the family name could be detrimental to a potential presidential campaign. His older brother’s tainted legacy will prove to a be challenge if the younger Bush does decide to make a stab at running for the presidency.

Clinton

With revelations about what goes on behind the scenes of the Clinton Foundation, speculations surround the Clintons and their willingness to sell their image and reputation to further their own agendas. One of which could be a potential Hillary campaign, as the former Secretary of State has made the foundation her base while she contemplates a presidential run. With the addition of Hillary and Chelsea taking on major roles, it has truly become a family affair.

The New York Times wrote a takedown of the Clinton Foundation, stating:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

 Resources

Primary

Hart Research Associate/Public Opinion Strategies: Survey

Additional

The New York Times: Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions

Time: Liz Cheney And The Family Business: A Chart of All Congressional Dynasties

JFK Library: Joseph P. Kennedy

JFK Library: Life of John F. Kennedy

James W. Hilty: Robert Kennedy: Brother Protector

CNN: RFK Assassination Witness Tells CNN: There was a Second Shooter

JFK Library: Edward M. Kennedy

History Channel: Incident on Chappaquiddick Island

Time: Remembering JFK Jr., 15 Years Later

NBC News: The Kennedys: Portrait of an American Dynasty

Celebrity Net Worth: Bush Family Net Worth

Washington Times: Rise of ‘Dynasty’ Quick, Far-reaching

Michael Fix: The Paper Curtain: Employer Sanctions’ Implementation, Impact and Reform

Washington Post: As Jeb Bush Eyes 2016, Key Question is how a Presidential Campaign Would Affect his Family

The New York Times: Impeachment: The Overview — Clinton Impeached; He Faces a Senate Trial, 2D in History; Vows to do job Till Term’s ‘Last Hour’

Politico: Foundation Renamed for all Three Clintons

Christian Science Monitor: Chelsea Clinton Gets PhD From Oxford: For What?

Huffington Post: Political Family Feuds: The Good, the Bad, and the Really Ugly

Washington Post: 3 Reasons why we Have a Love/Hate Relationship With Political Dynasties

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Political Family Dynasties in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! Who’s enjoying this polar vortex 2.0? Not me!

To all of you in the Law Street D.C. office, is this really what you all do on a snow day? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks matthewstasoff.com!

Anyway! A bit south of D.C., exciting things are happening for the gays. At least, the gays who want to get married. Newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring is announcing that he finds the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. As a result, Virginia will ask a federal court to strike it down, alongside two same-sex couples.

Am I the only one who finds it a tad bit amusing that Virginia is going to court against itself? Anyway.

This is very exciting news! If the ban on same-sex marriage in Virginia is lifted, gay couples all across the state will gain access to the gazillion benefits afforded to legally married couples. Not to mention, they can stop navigating the legal minefield that results from having your marriage recognized by the federal government, but not by the state government. That shit’s a mess.

In order to win his case, Herring will base his argument on the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which struck down parallel laws banning interracial marriage. According to Herring, Loving didn’t just open doors for interracial couples, but for couples of all types. In his view, Loving found that couples have a fundamental right to marriage itself, and that right cannot be withheld based on a couple’s race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Pretty exciting stuff.

But I’m not just excited because, obviously, yay for civil rights and an end to marriage discrimination. (Also, let’s not forget that marriage is a pretty problematic institution all to itself. Grain of salt here, people.)

I’m also super pumped because this law affects two of my dear friends—Emilia Jones and Hannah Martin.

Aren’t they the cutest? They’re the cutest. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

I met Emi and Hannah back in 2010. We all went to NYU together, and we were all big lezzies. Naturally, we ran in the same circles.

Not really. I actually met Emi once at an LGBT club meeting in September 2009, and thought she seemed cool but was too shy to talk to her. (Socially awkward lesbian moment, over here.) The following semester, we wound up having two classes together and seeing each other literally every single day of the week, so we became fast friends.

Guys, Emi was awesome. She was my college bestie that year, and I was totally bummed when she graduated.

But! Emi’s life got all kinds of fabulous when she graduated from NYU. The state of New York legalized gay marriage in June 2011 — just in time for Gay Pride — and in July, she married her longtime lady love, Hannah.

They are so cute I can’t even handle it. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Anyway, they got married, I babysat their awesome cat in Brooklyn during their honeymoon, and then a few months later, they randomly moved to a farm in Virginia.

When I say randomly, I mean RANDOMLY. It literally felt like they were here one day, and gone the next. I secretly wondered if they were running from the CIA or something. Probably not. Anyway, they run Heart Moss Farm now, and they’re super happy, and they’re super cute.

With their adorable dog, Zach. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But! Being married in Virginia is complicated business, as Emi told me this morning.

“We recently re-filed our 2011 taxes — after my lawyer aunt who works for the IRS suggested it — when we were forced to file as married for NYC and NY state taxes but single federally. When we got our refund, it was A LOT of money,” Emi said. “If Va. doesn’t at least recognize gay marriage, we’ll have to file separate for Va. but joint federally, which essentially means you pay tons and tons of extra taxes. It is nasty business, especially when we are not making a lot as it is.”

So, basically, if Herring succeeds in his quest to get Virginia to recognize gay marriages, Emi and Hannah will be in a much better financial situation. And that’s awesome.

Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But there are other benefits to be had as well. Most of these run along the lines of basic respect for an individual’s safety and well being–like being allowed to visit each other and make decisions if one of them lands in the hospital. That shit’s a whole lot easier when there aren’t a bunch of contradictory, inconsistent laws arguing over whether you’re legally married or not.

So basically, we’re all rooting for Attorney General Herring over here, and also for Hannah and Emi. We’ll check back in with them once the ruling goes through.

In the mean time, all you Virginians should check out Heart Moss Farm’s pasture-raised chickens at your local farmer’s market. Yay for supporting queer businesses!

What do you think about Herring’s actions and Virginia’s gay marriage ban? Tell us in the comments!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Look at This Adorable Couple Who Will Be Super Pumped if Virginia’s Gay Marriage Ban is Lifted appeared first on Law Street.